Recommended Posts

There is no conflict in the philosophy, the conflict lies in the classification, which is always subjective to each classifier.

I think all the conflicting "isms" are the problem, resulting from reading secondary sources which conflict when each author has their own definition for any particular "ism". You already acknowledged that with you quoting conflict between the classifiers in the phrase above, about "reading X philosopher as a Y" where Y is a classification for philosophers.

Many texts can be read in different ways. Typically the only way to clarify how different people are reading the text is to go outside of the language of the text. Philosophers can then debate the proper way to read the figure. Of course misreading a philosopher can be quite productive. I don't think anyone thinks, for instance, that Heidegger's readings of Kant or Plato are terribly accurate for instance. But they were productive. So I don't oppose misreadings. I do think though that the general consensus among Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein scholars is that neither was a fideist. Although certainly one can read them in that fashion.

That's why it's kind of frustrating when you respond to arguments with "read X" rather than a counter argument. It avoids the central question of how you read the philosopher in question - as if there's no other way to read the figure without reading them the way you do. As I've gone to pains to emphasize, I'm fine with how you read the figures and you holding the positions you hold. But it's just not self-evident that someone who reads the same things will come to the same conclusions you do. Indeed given how most philosophers don't, it's just a fairly frustrating retort.

But as I said, I'll drop the particulars on Kiekegaard, Wittgenstein and others. It's just not been too fruitful.

I should add, that I certainly have philosophers I read in a way the majority don't. For instance I read Derrida as a realist whereas most see him radically in the opposite camp. I can give defenses for my reading though. Likewise I read Heidegger as a kind of realist although there interpreters are somewhat divided on reading him as a realist or idealist.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I am a Radical Empiricism ala James who is also a Fideist - there are no problems with that.

James I'll grant you was a fideist, although more in a broadly philosophical sense than a religious sense. To me that's a problem though with James.

Share this post

Link to post

One tiny question -->> how does the EAG fit into this? Clearly someone thought that the symbols contained some meaning that related to the BOA.

"Contained" is a strong word, and is misleading about what is really going on, and has been one of the false expectations that has led everyone down the wrong road for a very long time.

*Having an artistic relation to in a certain type of usage* is a better phrasing.

It is obvious from Egyptological evidence that the symbols do not literally *contain* the English message they are paired with.

The reaction to this fact has most often been that they are either a false translation or a piously mistaken translation, but still with the possibility of a revelatory thing happening.

The Jensen/Hauglid model now seems to side with the former, but they don't go down the path of figuring out what ancient evidence there is to reverse-engineer what is happening.

The natural question is, even though the symbols do not *contain* what they are paired with, what is the relationship, if it is an ancient one? Because, the idea that somehow the English paired with the Egyptian is a correct translation of the Egyptian is not a possible option. If one tries to still find an ancient explanation for that relationship, it is not that. Therefore, what possible relationship is left over without accusing Joseph Smith if incorrectly translating, but would still be ancient? This is the question that neither Hauglid, nor Jensen ask. This is the path that they have not chosen to follow. This, however, is the path that I have followed for over a decade now in my research.

This is the same approach as how Nibley and Rhodes tried to reverse-engineer what is going on between the Facsimiles and the English text that is paired with them. And they succeeded in doing so. Rhodes succeeded:

Nibley succeeded and discusses many of these things in his book One Eternal Round. The usual easiest example to point out is the thematic pun on "creation" between the Kolob material in the Explanation for Facsimile #2 figure 1, and the figure itself of Khnum-Ra. This is a pun forming a pair between the figure and the English text that was derived from an Egyptian original. This was productive, and yielded results for both Nibley and Rhodes.

Why then aren't people asking the same questions and doing the same activity for the pun pairings in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers? I am the only person that is doing so.

My research reverse-engineers these relationships. Whether anyone ever takes me seriously and my work seriously is another matter altogether, and that is up to them.

Share this post

Link to post

What exactly is Hauglid's position now? It sounds from that Facebook post that he agrees with Vogel, but it's not clear how far or how that affects his view of it as scripture.

Hauglid now has not responded to my emails for a number of years, so I wouldn't know for sure. Only Hauglid can answer this. But it seems that he agrees with Vogel as far as the evidence goes. In fact, I do not disagree one bit with Vogel about evidence on a fundamental level. I only differ in my interpretation of that evidence.

Share this post

Link to post

What exactly is Hauglid's position now? It sounds from that Facebook post that he agrees with Vogel, but it's not clear how far or how that affects his view of it as scripture.

I don't want to speak for him, but he's pretty open about his views on the BofA having changed drastically over time and strong disagreement with Gee and Muhlstein. One of my all-time favorite moments in Mormon Studies was at the Church History Symposium some years back at the Conference Center, when Gee claimed that Joseph had no direct involvement with the KEP or EAG. Hauglid was one of the next presenters and opened with a picture of one of the pages of the KEP or EAG on the overhead, declaring, "this is in Joseph Smith's handwriting."

Share this post

Link to post

I don't want to speak for him, but he's pretty open about his views on the BofA having changed drastically over time and strong disagreement with Gee and Muhlstein. One of my all-time favorite moments in Mormon Studies was at the Church History Symposium some years back at the Conference Center, when Gee claimed that Joseph had no direct involvement with the KEP or EAG. Hauglid was one of the next presenters and opened with a picture of one of the pages of the KEP or EAG on the overhead, declaring, "this is in Joseph Smith's handwriting."

Exactly. This is why I have an approach that on the one hand agrees with Hauglid and Vogel on evidence, but uses Nibleys' and Rhodes' approaches to the facsimiles (but instead, I apply that same approach to the characters taken from the Hor Papyrus in the EAG/GAEL, with their paired English explanations). And my position on this has not fundamentally changed for over a decade. And I have results. And I invite those results to be actually scrutinized.

Share this post

Link to post

The natural question is, even though the symbols do not *contain* what they are paired with, what is the relationship, if it is an ancient one? Because, the idea that somehow the English paired with the Egyptian is a correct translation of the Egyptian is not a possible option. If one tries to still find an ancient explanation for that relationship, it is not that.

It appears that you are very young when you speak with such ABSOLUTE certainty.

Would it be a waste of time to suggest reading my posts on the mnemonic theory and Tvedtnes "translation" using the GAEL.